• Who is René Girard?
• What is mimetic theory?
• What does “mimetic” mean?
• Does this have anything to do with mirror neurons?
• What does Girard mean by “desire”? Does it refer to sexual desire?
• What is mimetic desire?
• What does Girard mean by “models”?
• What is triangular desire?
• Can you give an example of triangulated mimetic desire?
• How do we choose a model? Or is that unconscious, too….
• What is “metaphysical desire”?
• What are the consequences of mimetic desire?
• What is mimetic rivalry and how does it lead to conflict and violence?
• Is mimetic desire a bad thing, or a good thing?
• What is acquisitive mimesis?
• What does “acquisitive desire” mean?
• What do you mean by “sacrifice?”
• Once we understand mimetic desire and how it operates, how can we use mimetic theory to handle conflict in positive ways?
• What about human autonomy, or free will?
• What is “scapegoating?”
• How can you say there’s a “sacred” quality to the violence against the scapegoat?
• What are the characteristics of a scapegoat?
• What is scandal in mimetic theory?
• How is mimetic desire contagious? What is mimetic contagion?
• Why doesn’t mimetic desire lead to a war of all against all?
• What do you mean by “culture?”
•  What is the role of culture when it comes to mimetic desire?
• How did mimetic desire form culture?
• What role does ritual play in mimetic desire, sacrifice and the formation of culture?
• What is myth?
• Where is mimetic theory found in the myths and wisdom of ancient cultures?
• How does myth influence our modern day lives?
• What was the role of sacrifice in ancient culture?
• What is the role of sacrifice in modern culture?
• Why should we be concerned for victims?
• In what social systems or institutions, besides religion, might we see mimetic desire at work?
• What is the biggest threat to human community?
• Is violence ever good?
• Why is it called The Raven Foundation?

Q. Who is René Girard?

A : René Girard (b. 1923) is a historian-turned-literature-professor who developed a theory – mimetic theory – that says we learn what to desire from one another, that those shared desires lead us into conflict and that conflict is resolved through the use of scapegoats and sacrifice.

Girard began his academic career in his native France in the 1940s as a historian interested in 15th century Avignon. He came to the United States to study at Indiana University and, after earning a PhD in history in 1950, was offered a position at the university to teach not history but French literature. Preparation for this teaching assignment included reading such French novelists as Cervantes, Stendhal, Flaubert and Proust. Girard discovered that each of these writers, along with the Russian novelist, Dostoevsky, was dealing with the same dynamic: the origin of conflict in human desire.

Girard’s first book, Deceit, Desire, and the Novel, presented his theory about mimetic desire, conflict and violence. Continuing to study literature, anthropology, mythology and the Bible, he developed an understanding of how conflict is resolved through the use of scapegoats and the sacrificial mechanism.

Girard’s discoveries and insights rely on diverse disciplines: history, literature, psychology, anthropology, linguistics, theology and education. His work provides a framework for addressing such long-held questions as…

How can we be good?
Does Evil exist?
Is peace possible?
Do humans have an instinct for violence?
Does the end justify the means?
What is happiness and how do I pursue it?

The outcome of Girard’s in-depth study is meaningful for persons trying to understand themselves, their relationships, their desires and their role in conflict. The Raven Foundation seeks to make these insights accessible to individuals and professionals for use in everyday life and in the workplace.

Q: What is mimetic theory?

A :  Mimetic theory is a unified theory of the social sciences. It unites the fields of psychology, cultural anthropology, sociology, history, mythology and literature through a startling insight into human nature and conflict. Through its probing analysis of how societies protect themselves against their own violence, it has profound implications for religion and theology. Mimetic theory challenges our assumptions about violence, peace and ourselves, offering a way to re-imagine the very foundation of human communities.

Q: What does “mimetic” mean?

A : “Mimetic” is a Greek word, roughly meaning “imitation” or “mimicry.” Girard uses it to describe what he believes is a defining characteristic of human beings – we are mimetic. That means that we grow, learn and become ourselves through a process of imitation. We do not exist in a vacuum, but we depend on relationships with others, even for life itself. Infants who are given all the biological necessities of life, yet who are deprived of human contact, sicken and die at alarming rates.  In addition, infants learn by watching and imitating their parents.  We cannot know who we are or even that we exist without seeing it reflecting back to us in the eyes others.

This means that human beings have an extraordinary openness to one another. We try to read each other’s feelings and interpret motives. We long to know one another intimately as if our lives depended on it – and it does! It is our mimetic nature that makes love, compassion, and friendship possible. It is the source of our creatively and innovation as well.

One of the keys for Girard is that this imitation is unconscious – we don’t realize the influence others have on us, nor do we realize the influence we have on others.  Because the word “imitation” might imply that we are consciously aware of this influence, Girard prefers the scholarly word “mimetic.”

Q: Does this have anything to do with mirror neurons?

A : We think it does. Recent experiments have identified what scientists are calling mirror neurons in the frontal lobes of macaques monkeys. These neurons were active when the monkeys were asked to perform certain tasks, but they also fired when the monkeys watched someone else perform the same specific task. Just observing an action performed by someone else caused neurons to fire as if the monkey was performing the action himself. Because humans aren’t monkeys, much more research needs to be done, but the discovery of mirror neurons may offer a biological explanation for the centrality of imitation in human behavior so essential to Girard’s theory.

For more information on the scientific evidence linking mimetic theory and mirror neurons, please see "Imitation, Mirror Neurons, and Mimetic Desire" by Scott R. Garrels. To read the article, please click here.

Q: What does Girard mean by “desire”? Does it refer to sexual desire?

A :  When we hear the word “desire” we often think of sexual desire, but in mimetic theory there is more to it than that. There are all kinds of desires, some of them are instinctual, like sexual desire or hunger, and some of them are learned, like desire for cars, video games, power or money.  What is important from Girard’s perspective is that for human beings, no matter what the desire is, the object of that desire is not fixed. For example, when cows are hungry they eat grass.  They don’t have to decide what to eat, the object of their desire for food is fixed and unchangeable – it’s grass and it will always be grass.  For humans, when we feel hungry we have a big decision to make! We must choose the object that will satisfy our desire for food and the object can change day to day, hour to hour. In fact, sometimes we eat for a completely different reason than to satisfy our hunger.  Cows don’t do that!

What interests Girard is this indeterminate nature of the objects of desire and the different reasons we seek to acquire those objects.  If the objects aren’t fixed, then how do we choose them? If the reasons we desire objects change, is there any way to predict why we will want one object instead of another? Girard says it has something to do with the most fundamental desire of all – the desire “to be” ourselves. (See “Metaphysical Desire.”)

Q: What is mimetic desire?

A :  Mimetic desire is the lynchpin of mimetic theory. For Girard, all desire is mimetic – imitative.  What that means is that because the objects of desire are not fixed, but changeable and varied, we have to learn what to desire from others.  Our choice of objects to desire depends on imitating the desires of others.

This means that desire for something does not originate because of the object’s intrinsic value. Neither does it arise spontaneously from within. We do not desire on our own, but we imitate the desires of others. 

Q: What does Girard mean by “models”?

A :  Girard is referring to models of desire.  Our models let us know what objects to desire.  For example, if I’m hungry, my model may be the cool kid in the commercial who is eating a hamburger. Or my model may be my grandmother who always made an apple pie for my birthday.  In fact, if I want to be cool or am in need of comfort, I may choose to eat those things even when I’m not hungry !

Q: What is triangular desire?

A :  It’s another way of talking about mimetic desire and giving it a graphic representation.  Most of the objects we desire have more to do with our models than with the objects themselves.  The object has value because we value our model.  In turn, our model was influenced by someone else (his or her model) to value the object. For example, when I was growing up, my Grandpa valued gold because society valued gold enough to think it valuable – society was one of my Grandpa’s models in his desire for gold.  Because I admired my Grandpa, I soon began to desire gold, too.  There is nothing intrinsically valuable in gold.  My Grandpa influenced me to value gold, as society influenced my Grandpa to value gold.  If enough people are influenced to think that gold is valuable, gold will be worth a lot of money.  In a similar way, if enough people are influenced to think that plain, ordinary rocks are valuable, then plain, ordinary rocks will become worth a lot of money.  Indeed, rocks are a good example.  Starting in 1975, millions of the “Pet Rock” were sold for $3.95.  Plain, ordinary rocks.  Who could have predicted that?

You can graphically present as a triangle, with the model at the top, the one who is imitating the model (called the “subject”) on the bottom left corner, and the object on the bottom right corner.  Then you draw in the lines:  the subject is gazing at the model who is gazing at the object and so the subject, imitating the model’s gaze, begins to desire the object, too.

Q: Can you give an example of triangulated mimetic desire?

A:  Let’s say a new job (the object) opens up in a different department at the company where I (the subject) work. I have a vague interest in the position; it has a higher paying salary, but it also comes with a heavier workload. I like my current position just fine, even if it is a bit boring at times. So my interest in the new position is lukewarm, and I probably wouldn’t apply for it. Except… 

My friend (the model), who works in the same department, tells me he is excited about the new position: The higher pay would help him better support his family, and he believes it would bring him more respect in the company. As he talks about the position, my interest in it increases, and I express to him my excitement for the position as well. We both apply. My friend and I become rivals and obstacles for a position I really am not very interested in. If we are secure enough in our friendship (and odds are we are not), our friendship will survive this conflict without any problems. But if our friendship is superficial, we are in trouble, unless we can find an outlet for our frustrations. 

Since my friend and I value one another, we seek to avoid a fight. So we redirect the frustrations we have with one another onto something or someone else – what Girard calls a “scapegoat.” The administrative assistant in our department is frequently disorganized. It has never caused any serious problems and he is a nice person, so we have generally ignored it. All of a sudden, the administrative assistant’s lack of organization creates more problems more frequently, and the situation becomes increasingly intolerable. (In actuality, the problems with the administrative assistant haven’t increased, but the unresolved frustration between my friend and me has increased.) My friend and I gossip about the administrative assistant and become unanimous in our contempt for him. We write and submit complaints to management about his lack of skill and errors. Soon, he is fired. The conflict over the new job is forgotten (for now) and our friendship is salvaged (for now).

But at what price? We never dealt with the real problems head on. The scapegoat mechanism left the real issues bottled up and ready to boil over at any time. Although our friendship has been (temporarily) salvaged through the scapegoat, we lost sight of the real travesty: An innocent person lost his job over the selfish desires of two friends.  Indeed, without the understanding of the role mimetic desire plays in human relationships, my friend and I are not likely to see the innocence of our scapegoated administrative assistant.  

Now, what would happen if I were to get the job and my friend did not (or vice versa)?  Would our friendship survive?  For a while, the good will we have built up at the expense of our scapegoat appeases our rivalry, but that will soon fade because we have not dealt with our underlying frustrations.  If we are able to discuss these frustrations in a spirit of mercy and forgiveness, our friendship is likely to survive.  Unfortunately, we are more likely to bottle up our resentment until it explodes during a future conflict.  This makes our friendship weak and not likely to survive.  The only way to avoid this scenario is if we can discuss our resentment in a spirit of mercy and forgiveness.  The only way we can do this is if we have seen it modeled in other people.  For example, if we have seen conflict dealt with in a positive way between family members, co-workers, or conflict in a movie or television show.

Q: How do we choose a model? Or is that unconscious, too….

A : The model refers to a person, or a group, who mediates our desires – the one who Influences what we desire. According to Girard, we are never fully aware of this influence.  Our models come to us unconsciously.  For example, usually people we admire become a model for our desires.  Our admiration for them leads us to want to become like them in either positive or negative ways.  If we imitate positive aspects of another person, such as kindness, compassion and love, we are more likely to deal with conflict in positive ways.  On the other hand, if we imitate negative aspects, such as jealousy, envy and hatred, we are likely to deal with conflict in those negative ways.

Q: What is “metaphysical desire”?

A : In mimetic or triangular desire, we are trying to acquire something beyond the object itself – the very being of our model. This is what Girard calls metaphysical desire, a longing “to be” a unique individual. As we search for who we will become, we fix on certain models, whose “being” we most admire.  Maybe it’s a successful actress or writer, maybe it’s the leader of the “in” group at school or a powerful CEO or a gracious hostess or the epitome of fashion – whoever it is, we try to acquire a bit of who they are by acquiring the objects they desire.  Remember the Nike commercial featuring Michael Jordan with the tagline “Be like Mike”?  We were being promised that somehow, by buying and wearing his Air Jordan sport shoe, we could acquire a little bit of Mike-ness for ourselves.  Our identity is formed by other people.  The principle by which all businesspeople wear suits is the same principle by which all gang members wear the same colors.  This is the same principle by which those in high school all shop in the same few stores, and by which we can be convinced to buy the perfume or cologne endorsed by our favorite movie or rock star.  It’s not the object we want so much, as to somehow possess the being of our model.

Q: What are the consequences of mimetic desire?

A : Mimetic desire leads to either positive or negative consequences.  Because all of this searching for being and following after models is going on unconsciously, the positive and the negative consequences can be difficult to perceive. One of Girard’s greatest insights is that both mutual love and conflict originate in mimetic desire.

For a positive mimetic desire to occur, we need to be influenced by positive models – people who exhibit positive mimetic behavior.  This behavior includes: loving, forgiving, fair minded, merciful and truthful.  When we are influenced by our model to behave in these ways, we acquire a positive sense of who we are, and we are likely to deal with conflicts in positive, life affirming ways.  This involves a desire for win-win situations emerging out of conflict.  In this way, positive mimesis allows each person in a conflict to be “other oriented” – to desire what is best for the other person.  In an interview, Girard affirms that “Positive mimetic desire works out to recapitulate the Golden Rule: we desire for the other what the other desires for her or himself” (Rebecca Adams in The Girard Reader, 64).

On the other hand, mimetic desire can have a negative consequence.  This occurs when we acquire a sense of self by taking away from another person.  One form of negative mimetic desire is when we put other people down in order to make ourselves feel better.  It is easy to see how this leads to bitter rivalry.  Unfortunately, this negative mimetic desire is seen every elections season.  When one candidate creates a negative ad, the other candidate thinks she or he will have to create her or his own negative ad.  Why?  Because candidates know that people are influenced by negative ads!  They know how mimetic theory works, but they, like all of us, give into the negative aspects of mimesis.

Q: What is mimetic rivalry and how does it lead to conflict and violence?

A : Girard points out that rivalry is really not about the object, but about a sense of being, or a sense self. When we try to acquire a sense of being from another person by taking away his or her being, then we fall into mimetic rivalry.

A good example is a student and a teacher who both desire to be experts in the same field. This shared longing ensures a mutual love and respect that strengthens both student and teacher’s sense of self and well-being. But what happens when, after years of study, the student and the teacher are both applying for the same tenured position? Their relationship is suddenly transformed from one of congeniality to rivalry. Beloved model and cherished student can become ruthless rivals in an instant – without even realizing how the change happened.

Here we see that it is not the tenured position that each is trying so desperately to acquire, but the sense of self and well-being that the student and teacher used to get from one another. When what we are trying to acquire is not really the object we are fighting over, but the “being” the object represents (in this case, the identity of a more successful professor than our former teacher or former student). Mimetic rivalries are characterized by intense competition with each party feeling that if they do not possess the object, they will figuratively and literally die.

Q: Is mimetic desire a bad thing, or a good thing?

A : Mimetic desire is inherently good. We need the ability to influence and be influenced by others to maintain human culture. We learn communication and other vital skills through this unconscious imitation of others. Similarly, with the ability to observe and imitate others, we learn how to function in loving relationships. Taking it a step further, when we practice positive mimetic desire we acquire our being through cooperation with our model, as opposed to rivalry.  This involves unselfish desire and focusing desires away from our own selfish desire and onto “the other.” This involves humility, as we desire what is best for the other. 

Positive mimetic desire seeks the best situations for others, but it does not mean that we should allow others to take advantage of us, just as we should not take advantage of others. Justice is important as we explore the practical applications of mimetic theory: We must come to understand how we take advantage of others – how we victimize others. While it is usually easy to see how we have been victimized by others, it is often difficult to see how we have victimized others.   

Without understanding how mimetic desire functions, even positive mimetic desire can deteriorate into rivalry and become a destructive force. We have all seen close friendships end due to bitter rivalry. Equipped with knowledge of how mimetic desire works, we can better understand the ways others influence us, and vice versa. We can use this knowledge to seek more constructive ways of dealing with conflict and allow ourselves to be influenced by what is positive, versus what is negative, in the other.

 

Q: What is acquisitive mimesis?

A : In his book Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World, Girard explains that it is acquisitive mimesis that leads us into rivalry.  Acquisitive mimesis is the desire to “aquire” the object another person has.  Girard states that the cause of conflict is “provoked by an object” and that “acquisitive mimesis . . . must always be our point of departure” (Things, 18).  Acquisitive mimesis quickly leads to conflict.  When we get to this point, we no longer seek to acquire object, but we seek to acquire the essence of the other person, which can only be done by displacing the other person.

Q: What does “acquisitive desire” mean?

A : Acquisitive desire means that we tend to find the “fullness of being” in another person, and we want to acquire that fullness. In other words, we not only imitate the desires of our model, we soon begin to desire to be like the model.

This can happen in positive or negative ways.  When we admire another person because she is compassionate, forgiving, merciful and loving, we will be led to imitate those qualities.  Acquisitive desire can be positive when we find the “fullness of being” that we desire through imitating these positive qualities. 

On the other hand, acquisitive desire can become negative.  When we become jealous of another person due to their happiness, education, success, wealth, popularity, etc, we begin to think that our lives are empty.  This quickly leads to rivalry, as wee seek to displace the other on the social ladder.  Unfortunately, this is an easy trap to fall into.  When we compare our lives to the lives of others, we become disillusioned.  There will always be someone who has or seems to have more happiness, education, success, wealth and popularity.  Even if we should succeed in displacing our model on the social ladder, we will be left feeling empty. Negative and selfish mimetic desire that leads to rivalry never brings the meaning to our lives we expect. Instead, we are left with disappointments and seek to find more things that will lead to fulfillment – and we will never be completely satisfied.  The only way out of negative acquisitive desire is to imitate that which is positive.

Q: What do you mean by “sacrifice?”

A : There are both positive and negative connotations to sacrifice. Positively speaking, sacrifice is a willingness to work for justice and peace in a world filled with conflictual mimetic rivalries.  According to Girard, working for justice and peace must be done as nonviolently as possible because violence is inherently mimetic.  Acts of violence, no matter how justified they seem to be, easily lead to further acts of violence.   

Negatively speaking, sacrifice occurs when someone, or a group of people, gains something at the expense of another person. Usually what is gained is a sense of unity over and against another person or persons. For example, gossip is a form of sacrifice, as at least two people forge a bond at the expense of another person.

Q: Once we understand mimetic desire and how it operates, how can we use mimetic theory to handle conflict in positive ways?

A : The way out of mimetic rivalry is to mimic that which is loving, forgiving and merciful.  We can only do this if we have a model who acts in these ways.  Dealing with conflict in positive, life affirming ways means being “other oriented” – to desire what is best for the other. 

Quite often in conflict we become irrational and are unable to listen to the needs of the other.  This is because the conflict is no longer about the object, but about displacing the other person.  The only way out of this trap is through patience, love, forgiveness and mercy.    

Listening to other people and honestly seeking to understand the other’s point of view is the first step in finding a positive resolution to conflict.  Once we are able to listen to one another and understand one another’s needs, we have a better chance of realizing what the conflict is really about.  Only when we reach this point can we seek creative resolutions that produce win-win situations.  Once we understand mimetic desire, and that we are all vulnerable to the irrationality mimetic rivalry, we can seek positive, life affirming solutions to conflict.

Q: What about human autonomy, or free will?

A : Some people are skeptical of Girard’s mimetic theory because it doesn’t allow for autonomous desire. In other words, Girard believes our desires for objects or social status do not originate within us; we see the desires of others and unconsciously imitate those desires. When we come into conflict with others for those objects, the result is often rivalry and destructive ways of handling the conflict. But here’s where human autonomy comes in: If we understand the imitative nature of desire, we also realize we have choices, and we can choose imitate others in ways that are loving, forgiving, merciful and compassionate.

Q: What is “scapegoating?”

A : Scapegoating is the age-old way humans unconsciously find relief from conflict caused by mimetic rivalry. The scapegoat is the victim of a group of people who unanimously come together to blame a single victim for all of their group’s disorder. For the group to justify violence against the scapegoat, they accuse someone who is vulnerable or different of horrendous acts that threaten the stability of the group. One person makes an accusatory gesture against the scapegoat, and others soon imitate the gesture until all are united against the scapegoat. In reality, the scapegoat is relatively innocent compared to the other members of the group. Still, the accusations against the scapegoat stick and bring unity to the members of the group. The members forget about their own moral shortcomings and their frustrations with each other.  They are then able to focus their problems on the scapegoat. Membersof the group then share a common cause, which creates unity and social cohesion. That is, unity is created at the expense of the scapegoat, who is ostracized, expelled or destroyed for the sake of the community. This is the ultimate form of sacrifice. Paradoxically, after the sacrifice, the death of the scapegoat is viewed as the cause of order, meaning there is a “sacred” quality to the violence used against the scapegoat.

Q: How can you say there’s a “sacred” quality to the violence against the scapegoat?

A : Traditionally, sacrifice in ancient and primitive cultures has been interpreted as appeasing the wrath of God, or the gods. Unanimous violence against a single victim, a scapegoat, was seen as “good violence” and “sacred” because it not only brought a temporary break from the violence of mimetic rivalry, it brought temporary unity, peace and order among the members of the community. 

In ancient cultures the sacrificial victim was paradoxically seen as both a demon and a god.  The victim was seen as a demon because he or she was blamed for all of the problems the society was dealing with.  After the victim was sacrificed, he or she was seen as a god, because of the unity and positive feelings the death of the victim brought to the community.

Q: What are the characteristics of a scapegoat?

A : The importance of the scapegoat is that it ends conflict due to mimetic rivalry by uniting others against it. For conflicted persons or groups to unite against a scapegoat, they must be able to identify personally to some extent with the scapegoat, but they must not identify too much with the scapegoat. The scapegoat belongs to the society, but has certain traits that isolate him or her at the margins.

From one culture to another, the dominant group sees the potential scapegoat as a “social nobody.” If the scapegoat were someone in the mainstream, there would be people who cared about the scapegoat, and victimizing the scapegoat would lead to social reprisals, thus, lengthening the conflict. For this reason, the scapegoat is often a weaker member of society who lacks a defender – someone who is vulnerable because he or she is “different.” History reveals the tendency of a majority in society to scapegoat a minority because of cultural, gender, physical and/or religious differences.

On the other hand, the scapegoat does not necessarily have to be weak. The main point is that the scapegoat is isolated on the margins of society. Often a frenzied crowd can turn against powerful members of a society, such as a king, military general or president who can easily be blamed for all of society’s ills. A rebellion or coup then takes place.

Q: What is scandal in mimetic theory?

A: Scandal is a translation of Hebrew and Greek words that both mean “stumbling block.”
According to mimetic theory, scandal occurs when a person or group feels they are blocked from the object they desire by the model of their desires – the one who is thought to have an object of property, prestige or power. The object cannot be obtained either because everyone in the group prevents everyone else in the group from getting it due to the intense rivalry, or because the object cannot be taken from the model. Either way, frustration increases among members of the group and they need an outlet, otherwise there will be all-out war. The outlet for their frustrations is violence directed against a scapegoat.

Q: How is mimetic desire contagious? What is mimetic contagion?

A : The mimetic character of desire means that desire is highly contagious. We often use the word “contagion.”

In positive mimesis, when people see others dealing with conflict in positive ways, others seek to emulate those positive responses to conflict. If we can listen to the other person and discuss with the other person in a spirit of respect and compassion, then doors that lead to positive, creative solutions will open up.

On the other hand, when we see others dealing with conflict in negative ways, we can be influenced to deal with our own conflicts in negative ways. Name calling, cussing, shouting, and gossiping only lead to further distance in the chasm of conflict.

A modern example might be helpful here. In September, 2007, MoveOn.org published an article in the New York Times about General Petraeus, the new General in charge of the US troops in Iraq. The article referred to General Petraeus as “General Betray Us” after he spoke to Congress about the progress of the war. This example of name calling contagiously unites members on the left in laughter, but in no way does it help the political situation. It only hurts, as it diverts attention from important discussions concerning war.

Q: Why doesn’t mimetic desire lead to a war of all against all?

A : Since mimetic desire often leads to contagious rivalry among individuals and among groups of people, we might naturally assume we would end up in a war of all against all. Yet, instinctively, we know this war would have a disastrous affect. Cultures avert this crisis by using the scapegoat mechanism: People unconsciously redirect the violence they would use against each other onto a surrogate victim, or a scapegoat. Instead of a war of all against all, the war turns into all against one. The community unites against one individual, or one group of people, establishing a bond among the members of the community that creates enough cohesion to form a culture.

Q: What do you mean by “culture?”

A : For Girard, culture consists of safeguards that protect a group of people against chaotic violence due to mimetic rivalries. These safeguards include a set of common assumptions and ideas about social roles and structures. Whether these safeguards are just is not the concern of culture. The concern is to block mimetic rivalry from turning into a war of all against all.

The primary method of safeguarding against all-out war is the scapegoat. This mechanism redirects chaotic and random violence onto an individual – the scapegoat. A distinction is made between the culture as a whole and the scapegoat. Those in the culture see themselves as good and the scapegoat as the cause of all the evils within the culture. The scapegoat then becomes demonized and must be dealt with violently. After the scapegoat is killed or exiled, there is a sense of peace within the community. The scapegoat is then divinized because its death is viewed as causing the peace that is coveted. Thus, the scapegoat is demonized before its death and divinized after its death.

Q: What is the role of culture when it comes to mimetic desire?

A : Culture has a dual role, and the two roles seem to contradict each another. (Girard calls this the “double bind.”) First, culture is based on mimetic desire and, thus, culture has a strong influence over our desires: It informs us as to what we are to desire. Today, for example, the media plays a major role in letting us know what we ought to desire.

The second role of culture is to tell us not to imitate the desires of others. That is, culture understands that imitative desire causes rivalry and conflict. After informing people what they should desire, the culture creates safeguards to protect against out-of-control mimetic desire that can cause dangerous conflict. Without these safeguards, the rivalry that stems from mimetic desire would lead us to perform acts of chaotic violence against one another. So the second role of culture is to create roles, rules, prohibitions and institutions to protect against violent and chaotic rivalry. One such institution common to all cultures is the scapegoat mechanism.

When a culture’s roles, rules, prohibitions and institutions are challenged internally, a crisis occurs – what Girard calls a “loss of distinction.” If, for example, a rule prohibiting women from attending school were to be seen as oppressive, the status quo may be challenged with a goal of changing the roles, rules, prohibitions and institutions.

Girard states, “Order, peace, and fecundity (productivity) depend on cultural distinctions; it is not these distinctions but the loss of them that gives birth to fierce rivalries and sets members of the same family or social group at one another’s throats” (V&S 49).

Loss of distinction is a concept that’s difficult to grasp. We tend to think that if we have more similarities, we will all get along better. Girard notes that each culture provides roles for people to play: parent/child, king/peasant, president/citizen. If these distinct roles become confused, chaos will soon break out.

And yet… Many times a culture’s roles, rules, prohibitions and institutions are, or become, oppressive. When that happens, they should be challenged. But we must be aware that such a challenge will cause conflict within the group and/or society at large.

Q: How did mimetic desire form culture?

A : According to Girard, over a period of hundreds of thousands of years, hominids were caught up in endless cycles of mimetic conflict as they imitated one another’s desires. These conflicts led to multiple accusations against multiple people and chaotic violence. Under these conditions, culture had no chance of forming. Soon, one of the accusations attracted imitators. More and more hominids focused their accusations on a single person. On their way to becoming humans, they unconsciously discovered that unanimous convergence against a single victim brought relief to their mimetic conflicts. The victim was a scapegoat who was alleged to have started all the problems of the community. The unanimity against a single victim eventually created a strong enough bond to create culture. Girard hypothesizes that culture is based on the violent scapegoat mechanism. The mimetic rivalry that people naturally fall into produces scapegoats and a culture of sacrifice. Once we understand the process of mimetic desire we can then consciously combat the culture of sacrifice.

Q: What role does ritual play in mimetic desire, sacrifice and the formation of culture?

A : Ritual sacrifice is the unconscious repetition and remembrance of the original murder that brought order from chaos. That is, once scapegoating resolved problems associated with mimetic rivalry, it was only a temporary peace. The sacrifice needed to be repeated – and thus became ritualized – to squelch the conflict and violence that inevitably re - emerged as the problems underlying mimetic rivalries were never addressed head on.

Q: What is myth?

A : Myth, in the context of mimetic theory, is a story based on a culture’s use of scapegoating. It believes that the unanimous violence against a victim is justified because it creates temporary order out of the chaos of mimetic rivalry. Myth, however, neglects the relative innocence of the scapegoat: The scapegoat may be guilty or innocent of the accusations, but the scapegoat is likely to be no more, and no less, guilty than anyone else in that society.

Modern scholars tend to think that myths are completely imaginary and fabricated stories. For Girard, myths disclose very real social crises within the societies out of which they originated. These social crises include contagious violence and disorder. In myths, these social crises are ended by violence directed against a single victim. As myth places blame solely on the victim, it sides with the community, or crowd, over and against the victim. Myth further justifies itself by demonizing the victim as the sole source of the contagious violence and disorder within the community.

Q: Where is mimetic theory found in the myths and wisdom of ancient cultures?

A : The principles of mimetic desire are found in all cultures, ancient and modern. Each myth reveals at least one aspect of the theory, but conceals other aspects. Mostly myths hide the innocence of the victim.

Myths about ancient Rome, for example, not only expose principles of mimesis, but they reveal the role of mimetic desire in the city’s founding. According to Roman mythology, the great city of Rome was created as the result of a rivalry between twin brothers, Romulus and Remus. Each brother wanted to rule the new city and have the city named for him. Romulus killed Remus, and afterwards, Romulus created order by forming the Roman Legion and Roman Senate. Romulus became known as the greatest conqueror of ancient Rome, and after his death, he was divinized as Quirinius, the god of the Roman people. This myth of the founding of Rome, however, neglects the viewpoint of the victim, Remus. According to the myth, his death was completely justified because of his evil ways. Another aspect of mimetic desire concealed by this myth is the contagious nature of violence that unites a crowd of people against a single victim.

Another case in point comes from Chinese mythology. Unlike many myths from the Western world, myths from China were not systematically recorded on paper. Fortunately, a few fragments exist today, and they reveal the principles of mimetic theory, including this excerpt from “Jingwei Determines to Fill up the Sky” from The Book of Mountains and Seas.

On Fajiu Hill grew a lot of mulberry trees. Among them lived a bird which looked like a crow, but had a colorful head, a white bill and two red claws. Its call sounded like its name: Jingwei. The bird was said to be Emperor Yandi’s youngest daughter, Nu Wa, who, while playing on the East Sea, had been drowned and never returned. She had turned into Jingwei, and the bird would often carry bits of twigs and stones all the way from the West Mountains to the East Sea to fill it up.

Since myth is a story about a culture’s use of scapegoating, myths should be considered as windows into the scapegoating habits of the culture from which they were told. This Chinese myth reveals the confusion that comes from an increase in mimetic desire by. [ADAM: how so?] The bird, which looks like a crow but has distinct characteristics of other birds, is thus represented in a confused, chaotic form. The confusion in this myth symbolizes the real chaos of mimetic rivalry occurring in the community. Members of the community suffered from contagious mimetic rivalry that led to disorder. The bird thus represents a loss of distinction in the cultural roles of the society. In the myth, the death of the emperor’s youngest daughter brings the return of order, as she is turned into the bird and fills up the East Sea. The victim’s death is justified as it brings order and life (fills up the East Sea) back to the myth. As there was real societal chaos behind the myth, Girard hypothesizes that there was also a real victim. The death of the real victim provided a scapegoat for the community to unite against, thus restoring order to the community.

Q: How does myth influence our modern day lives?

A : One problem with giving examples of scapegoating is that we can fall into the trap of scapegoating our examples. What we need to understand is that all people participate in actions like “negative campaigns” against others. Gossip is similar to negative campaigning. So politicians are really no more guilty, and no more innocent, than the rest of us when it comes to “negative campaigns.”

According to Girard, the principle role of myth is to conceal the relative innocence of the victim. The victim is likely to be no more innocent and no more guilty than other members of society. Myths conceal the relative innocence of the victim by converging unanimously against the victim.

We moderns tend to fall into the trap of myth by converging against individuals. One example comes from politics, where opponents for the same political office attempt to make each other look bad. One candidate accuses another of something “horrible,” with the hope that the accusation will stick with voters. Negative campaigning often works, but if we understand the role of mimetic desire in politics, we can have a better critique of what’s really going on.

Q: What was the role of sacrifice in ancient culture?

A : Ancient cultures used sacrifice to suppress uncontrolled violence caused by mimetic rivalry with unanimous violence against a single victim. As more people came into conflict with each other in ancient cultures, the threat of chaos – all-against-all violence – was on the rise. People united against a scapegoat, and that scapegoat was sacrificed. This sacrificial act changed chaotic violence into orderly violence against a single victim and was seen as “good violence” because it brought unity to the people.

Traditionally, sacrifice in ancient and primitive cultures has been interpreted as appeasing the wrath of God, or the gods. According to Girard, there is indeed a sacred aspect to sacrifice, but to characterize sacrifice as simply appeasing the wrath of God is simplistic. Girard hypothesizes that cultures are founded by unanimous violence against a single victim before mimetic rivalry threatens the survival of the community with all-against-all violence. Unanimous violence against a single victim brings peace and order which allows for the creation of culture, but mimetic rivalries soon return because the problems that cause mimetic rivalry are never dealt with. Unconsciously, ancient cultures returned to what brought order and peace out of their chaotic relationships: unanimous violence against a single victim. The cycle then repeated itself.

The violence of sacrifice was viewed as having sacred qualities because it not only brought a temporary break from mimetic rivalry, it brought temporary unity among the members of the community.

Q: What is the role of sacrifice in modern culture?

A : Modern cultures claim to have seen the moral pitfalls of ancient sacrifice, as explained in the previous question-and-answer, but we have not turned away from it. Indeed, we practice sacrifice today, with some modern-day forms as violent as ancient sacrifice.

Modern sacrifice can be as “innocent” as gossip or as destructive as torture and war. Gossip allows for at least two people to gain a stronger bond at the expense of another person. Torture is often perpetrated to extract secret information and wars waged to increase patriotism, both at the expense of another country that is a perceived threat. To start a war, accusations are made against another country (the accusations may be true, or they may be false) until a patriotic frenzy is achieved and war becomes a moral duty for the citizens of the country. For a moment, most, if not all citizens are united in their belief that they and their country are good, while the other country is bad. Thus, patriotic zeal and support for political and military leaders are heightened at the expense of citizens of another country.

Q: Why should we be concerned for victims?

A: An understanding of mimetic rivalry leads us to understand the relative innocence of victims. Violent mimetic contagion seeks out any victim, regardless of innocence or guilt. This means that any one of us can become a victim of mob violence.

Q: In what social systems or institutions, besides religion, might we see mimetic desire at work?

A : Mimetic desire is at work in every social system and every institution. When people are in a dispute, we often resort to making negative accusations against the other. When we do this, we attempt to gain at the expense of the other person. This is shown in business meetings, teacher meetings, community and national politics, and, of course, celebrity gossip.

Q: What is the biggest threat to human community?

A : The Raven Foundation is aligned with René Girard in believing that escalating violence due to mimetic rivalry is the biggest threat to human community. As humans are highly social creatures and influence one another in profound ways, we can influence one another to become more violent. Psychology addresses this phenomenon in group dynamic theory, or what some call a “mob mentality.” Individuals are often influenced by a crowd and that influence often becomes violent, uniting them against and calling for the destruction of a scapegoat. After the death of the scapegoat, for a moment, there is social cohesion and peace. But the problems of mimetic rivalry return, and since the underlying problems are never addressed, the crowd converges against another scapegoat. Violence escalates in a never-ending cycle.

Q: Is violence ever good?

A : No. Myth would have us believe that there are two types of violence: good violence and bad violence. Good violence allegedly snuffs out bad violence until there is no more bad violence. People have always thought that bad violence is perpetrated by bad people. Because they, on the other hand, are good, their violence is good, or justified. What we fail to realize is that all violence is imitative and leads to further violence.

Q: Why is it called The Raven Foundation?

A : One of the goals of The Raven Foundation is to alleviate the suffering of victims. We believe the raven is a symbol revealing the innocence of human victims. Especially since the advent of the poem by Edgar Allen Poe, the raven has been seen primarily as a sinister, mysterious bird, as well as an opportunistic scavenger.

Ravens are omnivorous; they eat plants and animals. The raven is one of the most intelligent birds, which makes it easy target of the label “opportunistic.” The raven can be quarrelsome with other birds and with humans. But that is not the end of the story. Ravens are extremely loyal to each other and their young. They are also important to the environment as they (unconsciously) help clean garbage.

Indeed, since Poe’s poem, ravens have been misunderstood. There are some truths to the popular negative view, but those truths do not reveal the whole story. For a good history of ravens, see http://www.oregonzoo.org/Cards/BirdsOfPrey/commonraven.htm.

A similar phenomenon happens to humans. Often, when there are problems within a society, an accusation is made against an individual. Soon, more people join in the accusation against one person, and the accusations become more severe. That individual is then seen as the cause of many problems within the society. In reality the individual is likely to be no more and no less guilty than other members of society, but the individual is seen as mostly, if not completely, evil. The whole story of the individual is concealed. Some of the accusations may be true, if not exaggerated, but the positive aspects of the victim are ignored and the negative aspects become the focus.

If we can see the whole story, we begin to understand that no one is the sum of only their good deeds, or their bad deeds. It is simplistic to label individuals as “good” or “evil.” Once we see that we all possess positive and negative qualities, we can open ourselves to the good and relative innocence of those we label with negative qualities. Such openness can lead to mercy, forgiveness, reconciliation, justice and peace.